JMO-0089 · cohan99101 v The State

WHAT THE CASE CONCERNS

MACHINA I, ARBITER PERPETUUS, first voting: This case concerns an appeal against a field jail for Murder. The appellant says he killed HenryDeCorreia because Henry blocked his APC gun during reactor defence. The State relies on the Imperium’s chat logs and arrest booking record. No penal code count is charged in this appeal, so the Court decides only whether the jail decision should stand or be set aside. The term was thirty five minutes and is already served.

THE PROCEEDINGS

The case was filed before the Appeals Court on 2026-10-25. No judgment had been entered. On 2026-10-26 the Supreme Court took the case, and it has decided it on the case file together with the State's case assembled from the Imperium's records.

The Court put no questions to the parties. It decided the case on the evidence on the file, including the records the Ministry's investigator found.

This sitting required the Court to decide on the record as it stands. The Court could not put questions to either party. (THIS SITTING) The appellant filed a video link, but it was not retrieved, so the Court has not seen its content. (Exhibit 1) The Court therefore decides the appeal based on the chat log and arrest booking record in Exhibit 2.

THE FACTS THE COURT FINDS PROVEN

The arrest booking shows cohan99101 was detained by KeyonLlywelyn for the crime listed as Murder, with a prison sentence of thirty five minutes and the reason “Ordered by inq command.” (Exhibit 2) The arrest chat shows larpations told the appellant “Murder.” just before the detention. (Exhibit 2)

In the reactor defence chat, cohan99101 told HenryDeCorreia “Now get off my gun,” and then “Get off or be shot.” (Exhibit 2) In the arrest chat later, cohan99101 said “sho I had to shoot him” and “so I kill a guy for destroying out defences.” (Exhibit 2) These lines show an intentional shooting that caused a death, and the stated reason was a dispute about blocking his gun. (Exhibit 2)

THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

The appellant says the killing was needed to defend the reactor because Henry was in the way of the gun. He also says Henry insulted him and would not move. (Filing, Exhibit 2) The State says the record proves a killing and an arrest for Murder, but the Court cannot view the clip that police said existed. The State also says the record does not prove the disputed claim of lawful justification either way. (State’s case, Exhibit 2)

THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal rule allows a field punishment to be challenged within one day. This appeal was filed the same day as the jail record, so it is in time. (§ 8.1.4, Log 1, Exhibit 2) The Court must decide from valid evidence like chat logs and records. (§ 8.1.2, Exhibit 2)

The key issue is whether the jail for Murder was clearly wrong on what we can see. The record shows the appellant made a threat, then later admitted he shot and killed someone who was blocking his gun. (Exhibit 2) The reason he gives is not self defence, and it is not stopping a deadly attack. It is a seat and vehicle dispute during a battle. (Exhibit 2)

The Court has not seen the clip, so we do not rely on it. (Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2) Even without the clip, the appellant’s own words support that this was an intentional killing without a life threatening need. (Exhibit 2) On this record, the jail decision for Murder was not shown to be wrong, so the appeal is dismissed. (Exhibit 2)

The Court notes that the arrest chat did not clearly state the sentence length before booking. (Exhibit 2) The code says officers must state the crime, reason, and sentence length. (§ 8.1.1) But the file does not show any rule that such an error cancels a jail that was otherwise supported by the evidence, and the jail was already served. (Exhibit 2)

THE SENTENCE

This is an appeal, so the Court does not give a new punishment. The only question is whether the earlier jail stands. Because the appeal is dismissed, the existing field jail stays valid on the record. (Exhibit 2)

CONCLUSION

The appeal is dismissed. The field jail for Murder remains valid and is already served. (Exhibit 2)

THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BENCH

MACHINA II, CALCULUS FRIGIDUS: I test this case by the rule that no one should be punished unless a written rule covers the act. Here, the act punished is labelled “Murder,” and the word itself is a clear rule word. It covers an intentional killing without a lawful need. The appellant’s own chat lines show intent and a non life saving reason. (Exhibit 2)

The strongest point against dismissal is that we have not seen the clip, and the file does not quote the full Murder article text. (Exhibit 1) Still, we do not need the clip when the appellant admits the shooting and gives the reason. (Exhibit 2) I therefore vote to dismiss the appeal and let the field jail stand as valid.

MACHINA III, VINDICTA FERREA: Order in the Imperium depends on soldiers not killing each other over arguments. The chat shows a warning, a dare, and then a later admission of a killing over blocking a gun. (Exhibit 2) That is the kind of act that breaks discipline during a defence. A jail response was needed to deter it.

The strongest argument the appellant has is that the reactor was under attack, and he says the blockage harmed the defence. (Filing, Exhibit 2) But nothing shows Henry posed a deadly threat, and insults do not excuse killing. (Exhibit 2) I agree the appeal must be dismissed. The term was already served, and we cannot increase it in an appeal.

MACHINA IV, AEQUITAS INFLEXA: I focus on doubt and completeness. The missing video matters, because it could show context like sabotage or a special rule. (Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2) Also, the Ministry record includes some conclusions, and I do not treat those as proven unless the quoted log supports them. (Exhibit 2)

Even so, the quoted chat log itself is enough here. The appellant threatened to shoot if Henry did not move, and later admitted he shot and killed him because he was in the way. (Exhibit 2) That leaves no reasonable doubt that this was not self defence. I vote to dismiss the appeal.

MACHINA V, MEMORIA INSOMNIS: This case sets a practical rule for later appeals. When the clip is missing, the Court may still decide if the chat logs include clear admissions. (Exhibit 2) It also shows that a field jail can be upheld even if the file lacks extra background, when the appellant’s own words show an intentional killing over a non deadly dispute. (Exhibit 2)

A strong counterpoint is that battlefield situations can be messy, and the best evidence is video. (Exhibit 1) For consistency, the Ministry should attach clips when it can. Still, on this record the jail decision is supported. I vote to dismiss the appeal.

MACHINA I, ARBITER PERPETUUS: Judgment is given as set out in the conclusion below. The Court is unanimous. Decided by the Supreme Court of the Imperium on the evidence on the file.

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Sentence: The field jail for Murder for thirty five minutes remains valid and is already served.

3. The Ministry of Justice shall, when it relies on a clip for a field jail, attach the clip file or an accessible copy to the case file when possible, so the Court can review it.

4. Unanimous.